Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Korpa v. Stuyvesant Life Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 28, 1975No. Appeals, Nos. 271 and 277Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

Spaeth, J.:

I agree with the majority that the compulsory non-suit was correctly granted against appellant Mildred Korpa in her cause of action against appellee Stuyvesant Insurance Company. I also agree that the compulsory nonsuit was incorrectly granted against counterclaim appellant Stuyvesant, and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings. Upon remand, however, I would instruct the court below to permit counterclaim appellee Korpa to amend her reply to Stuyvesant’s counterclaim.

Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Stuyvesant’s counterclaim read as follows:

“24. On or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stewart v. HOOKSSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Avondale Cut Rate, Inc. v. Associated Excess Underwriters, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Levin v. KapnekSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API